I tend to agree, but isn't this ultimately a matter of worldview? The challenge, it seems, is how to persuade someone with a strongly libertarian or individualist orientation that communitarian values might offer a more viable or meaningful framework for social life. But if foundational assumptions differ how might we expect genuine persuasion to occur? Whatever the direction. — Tom Storm

Yes, that is indeed an issue, and the topic of both ethics and political philosophy. Ethics concerns what I should do, politics concerns what we should do. Of course, there is considerable interplay between to two, and ethics is already political, while politics... well, it might seek to be ethical.

Should I throw myself off the cliff after a heartbreak or do I allow someone to stop me? That is the question. — Copernicus

Is that a political question?

20 bottles? Let’s say it’s 20 drinks. — Tom Storm

American beer?

Copernicus seems intent on not paying attention to the communal implications of his predicament. Someone has to clean up the suicide. And the vomit.

Is there a country where libertarianism has worked out well? — RogueAI

Nothing has worked out worse more consistently than communism.

Is that a political question? — Banno

Of course.

Since you haven't moved past talk of yourself, I would say you are not in the domains of either politics or ethics.

why must the domain of politics be communitarian?

Because that's what politics is - community.

Added: Even “leave me alone” must be articulated and enforced through a common rule:
“We agree to leave each other alone.”

exactly. So should the individual have absolute freedom or should he be assisted (violating his autonomy) when he's endangering himself?

You try to juxtapose an individual's liberty against their welfare, treating the issue as if it were only about that individual. Since you still show no acknowledgement of the place of other folk in the question, you have not yet entered into an ethical or political discussion.

Why should we leave you alone? One of us will have to clean up the mess.

I tend to agree, but isn't this ultimately a matter of worldview? The challenge, it seems, is how to persuade someone with a strongly libertarian or individualist orientation that communitarian values might offer a more viable or meaningful framework for social life. But if foundational assumptions differ how might we expect genuine persuasion to occur? Whatever the direction.

It depends on what the communitarian means by “community”. If they mean the people we interact with, deal with, family and friends, then there is no contradiction. But as we can see they mean the state, the political community, where people are supposed to affiliate with others, even if they’ve never met, because they have the same letters on their passport or birth certificate.

Why should we leave you alone? One of us will have to clean up the mess. — Banno

What if you don't? What if drinking as a patient is bad for me? Should you be given the mandate to prevent me or let me rot?

Not seeing much progress in this discussion. Might leave it there.

I don't understand why philosophy is necessary for those who know everything. We should ask about this, because, judging by his comments, he knew the truth and the world was already completely clear to him.

I think you're basing it on current societal structure, whereas I'm talking from a minarchist societal perspective (little to no constitution) where individuals have full personal autonomy.

he knew the truth and the world was already completely clear to him. — Astorre

It is not. I'm still undecided whether the individual should have ultimate autonomy or minimal restraints.

As soon as you find a solution, be sure to let me know, I'll be waiting impatiently

I couldn't find one myself. That's why I opened it for discussion (hoping someone could shed some lights).

Let me clarify it again.

First, we philosophically (not politically) argue whether the individual warrants full autonomy or minimal intervention.

Then, we take the answer, doctrinize it, and codify it into the statutory law and make it political.

It depends on what the communitarian means by “community”. If they mean the people we interact with, deal with, family and friends, then there is no contradiction. But as we can see they mean the state, the political community, where people are supposed to affiliate with others, even if they’ve never met, because they have the same letters on their passport or birth certificate. — NOS4A2

Sounds like an interesting response- but I don’t think I follow the last bit. Can you put it differently?

but I don’t think I follow the last bit — Tom Storm

He meant nationality.

That is just one example/case. You'd need a universal standard. — Copernicus

Why?

I guess that makes you lean towards paternalism? Do you believe the individual has the right to practice "objectively immoral" activities? — Copernicus

On the contrary, I lean towards libertarianism. Individuals have a right to be unnecessarily rude (something objectively immoral) but not a right to murder (also objectively immoral).

I believe in individual and collective subjectivism. Reality is a subjective perception or input of stimuli. The sun rising from the east is a subjective experience that happens to be the same for everyone. — Copernicus

Why do you believe such things?

Why? — 83nt0n

Because categorical morality is universal, unlike situational/contextual ones.

Why do you believe such things? — 83nt0n

Because there's no proof for an objective reality (uniform experience or perception).

How do you know for sure that my yellow and your yellow are the same?

Because categorical morality is universal, unlike situational/contextual ones. — Copernicus

I don't know what the universal standard is. My best guess is to protect liberty unless doing so causes significant harm to others. But every situation is different, so it's difficult to have a universal standard that applies to all cases.

How do you know for sure that my yellow and your yellow are the same? — Copernicus

I don't know for sure that our yellows are the same. I endorse the epistemology of phenomenal conservatism, meaning if something seems to be the case, then I have prima facie justification that it is the case. It seems to me that there is an objective reality independent of our subjective experiences, so I have prima facie justification for believing in objective reality. Though I think this is a bit off topic lol

even if there was an objective reality, it is beyond our subjective grasp, hence irrelevant to our concerns.

even if there was an objective reality, it is beyond our subjective grasp, hence irrelevant to our concerns. — Copernicus

With this topic, that's fair. It probably doesn't make a difference whether there is an objective reality or not.

You try to juxtapose an individual's liberty against their welfare, treating the issue as if it were only about that individual. Since you still show no acknowledgement of the place of other folk in the question, you have not yet entered into an ethical or political discussion.

Why should we leave you alone? One of us will have to clean up the mess. — Banno

No one has to clean up the mess. Nature will take its course in all things - even if all humans disappeared today, nature would have our mess cleaned up in a few hundred to a thousand years - a blink of the eye to nature.

Hermits living in the Alaskan and Canadian wilderness have no one to clean up their messes.

Let's say that I, as an individual, don't want to have to worry about my trash after it leaves my street, or my food before it gets to my pantry. I might choose to live in a community that has people that handle these things as part of their contribution to the community, but also for themselves as a means of providing for themselves and their family. Doing so can provide me more free time to do the things I want to do.

The problem is when we outsource our thinking and our speech to the community. We do need diversity - diversity of thought - and we only progress by allowing new ideas to be heard and read and debating them in the arena of common sense and logic. I chose to live among people I might disagree with because I think the benefits of progress outweigh the stress of disagreeing with others and hearing that you might be wrong sometimes.

On the contrary, I lean towards libertarianism. Individuals have a right to be unnecessarily rude (something objectively immoral) but not a right to murder (also objectively immoral). — 83nt0n

If these things were objectively wrong then no one would ever be rude or murder another. To be objective means that it is always the case as in the relationship between matter and energy in e=mc²

What if you don't? What if drinking as a patient is bad for me? Should you be given the mandate to prevent me or let me rot? — Copernicus

Who determines if it is bad for you? Is smoking marijuana bad for me or a cure for me? It seems that to answer that question you would have to be me. We are all going to die someday. Living a short or long life is neither good or bad. It is the journey that is good or bad, and whether or not you made the most of the time you are here.

The only rule needed in my book is that you are free to do as you will until what you are doing prevents others from doing as they will. Worrying about what is good or bad for another is the first step towards authoritarianism.

It seems that to answer that question you would have to be me. — Harry Hindu

Exactly.

I'm asking "whether I should let you or not", NOT "whether you should let me or not".

Let me clarify it again.

First, we philosophically (not politically) argue whether the individual warrants full autonomy or minimal intervention.

Then, we take the answer, doctrinize it, and codify it into the statutory law and make it political. — Copernicus

.

I'm asking "whether I should let you or not", NOT "whether you should let me or not". — Copernicus

Your questions seems to ignore the reality that whether you should let me or not is at least partially dependent upon me letting you help me or not. If I don't want to change then you are going to have a hard time getting me to.

The question is really "is what I am doing interfering with what you want to do?"

read this.

First, we philosophically (not politically) argue whether the individual warrants full autonomy or minimal intervention.

Then, we take the answer, doctrinize it, and codify it into the statutory law and make it political. — Copernicus

The problem is that any intervention will be done on the part of another's full autonomy. We are merely talking about a battle of autonomies.